will ask the mta to give you a status. president olague: i had requested that. i ran into timothy at sustainability discussions like the swedish consulates and comparing the sustainable policies with san francisco. they mentioned they have a lot of things at work. i think that maybe after we get through these heavy items, i know the commissioner had presented a list. they will start getting policy issues in the summer. they can come in and update us on some of the plans the mta has as far as sustainability issues are concerned. commissioner moore: [inaudible]

here we go. she controls it. i had to unexpectedly canceled yesterday's's meeting. i talked and told her that i would reschedule. and there is an informal ability for commissioners to draw -- drop. it is adding a bretath of fresh air. she will reschedule. commissioner fong or commissioner sugaya or anybody else can decide to go along. that is the review team that the department. -- at the department.

>> thank you, commissioners. letter d, a director's report. under review of the events. >> i wanted to remind you if you have any final comments on the housing element to try to get those two staff in the next few days. we would like to get you the final edit the diversion of about two weeks in advance of the hearing. -- the final version about two weeks in advance of the hearing. we have tentatively scheduled a morning hearing march 17. the calendar shows that to be an informational hearing. there will be a morning hearing

that day on that item. there was no board of appeals meeting this week, so there is no report. >> i will share with you the activities of the board of supervisors. the land use committee heard an ordinance that would amend the area plan labor criteria for affordable housing. one of the conditions is if it has affordable housing. on december 9, 2010, as part of the proposed ordinance to amend the visitation valley facilities and infrastructure. the recommended the legislation be approved as proposed. other than a respectful recommendation to supervise a

maxwell that she continue working with all parties. the committee heard the ordnance and recommended approval of the full board. at the board of supervisors, we had an appeal as a discretionary review case. at the full board, the neighborhood association made primary charges against the issuance of the candidates. the first concern was that they failed to conduct a district review of the property and the department conducted evaluation of the project in 2008. they concluded the existing druggarage was not a historic resource. he changed the scope of work

from altering an existing cottage to constructing a new development. they already made conclusions that there were no resources or the conduct an evaluation. -- the need to conduct an evaluation. it must be significant under the california register. they are willing to meet any of the criteria set forth, and they determined that it was not a historic resources and there had been no significant impact to offsites resources. the appellant claimed it would have a negative and the cumulative impact for resources. there was no substantial or credible evidence to support

this conclusion that was listed in a potential historic district. with those points, there were many in opposition as well as in support of the project. the review process could have been better, but the board believe that the planning performed adequate analysis of the neighborhood. the board upheld the project 11 to zero. i wanted to share mayor ellee introduced several ordinances, including legislation amendments to the planning code. these items are planned to be before this commission in april.

that concludes the report. commissioner moore: i'm interested to see mayor lee's support. that cannot be taken out of sequence, is that correct? since we are so close, we are basically in the process of doing the necessary steps. what he says does not preempt the larger sequence of what normally happens. >> they will be referred to the commission for action prior to any action by the board or other bodies. commissioner moore: is that correct for the eir? >> your action will be the first action that takes place on this project. with that, we move on to letter e, general public comment for 50

minutes. i have one speaker card at least for this item. they can address items within the jurisdiction thabut are not on the agenda today. each member may address the public for up to 3 minutes and a 15 minute total time limit. >> kathleen courtney? >> my name is kathleen courtney, i'm chair of housing for the russian hill community organization. i wanted to confirm your request. the community organization requests that the planning commission continued the

hearing for the discretionary review report on 1945. it is seeking clarification from the planning department and the city attorney's office regarding the process for addressing the appeal of the categorical hubs in -- exemption in conjunction with the review. we want to write a letter to the clerk seeking clarification from the city attorney. there appears to be inconsistent and contradictory elements of the city's policies and procedures. in fact, the direction that we have been given suggests we had

a similar situation. we are asking the commission to continue the hearing that is scheduled for march 10. i only made three copies of the letter to the clerk of the board as well as -- and we welcome any comments required to get this continuation. president olague: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. this is the first i have heard of any request for a continuance. i was not even aware there was an appeal of the categorical exemption. it seems to me that it is not a difficult issue. the first step has to come to you. certainly, the appeal at the board of supervisors, i don't see the complicated issue of the categorical exemption. i would urge the and not continue this item, it is a relatively modest project.

that was about 16 or 18 months ago. we would urge you not to continue this. president olague: any additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: did he say hide street? okay, i heard him say pine. >> our typical advice has been that appeals to environmental reviews are not timely until there is action on the project. that is what we have always been told. this is the first i have heard of the issue, too. i am not aware of any confusion on this, but i will look into it

more thoroughly. president olague: the city attorny is here. >> i don't have anything to add to this discussion at this point. this is also the first have heard of this issue. and if necessary, give you advice prior to next week. president olague: the calendar is released tomorrow by noon. >> you are now entering the portion of your calendar where the public hearing has been closed. commissioner antonini: i will have to recuse myself as i did

before. commissioner moore: we have teh he adoption of our hotel first. president olague: this is regular calendar, commissioner moore. commissioner antonini: i have received more in dental fees than is allowable. >> on the motion to recuse the commissioner? [roll call vote] the commissioner has been reduced from this item. -- recused from this item. at which time, members of the public were allowed to testify.

since the hearing has been closed, you may readdress them at this time. each member may address the public for up to 3 minutes. president olague: any public comment on this item? great. >> a good afternoon, members of the commission. i represent the residents' association on a california street. and the building is due for demolition. it was reviewed at the last meeting here. we object to this hot number of bases. -- for a number oon a number of.

has this building been tested for lead and asbestos before demolition? it can enter our homes and in danger our health. this is a similar scenario, on a smaller scale, but the free- floating toxic debris and dust to be trapped in the vicinity. we also object on the basis of public new sense. -- nuisance. it will be deleterious to our quality of life. it will occur immediately outside of our bedroom windows.

the windows are quite old and even when shot. -- old even when shut. we object on the basis of interference with the use of our privacy. the proposed construction project interferes with the use of our property. it will be unfair to the quality of life. construction workers will be there all day long. it is intended to block the direct sunlight on the west side of our building. it will impact the atmosphere making our homes less livable. we also object to the loss of street parking. i don't know if they have received the petition signed by

our association. president olague: if you leave it here, miss rogers will pass it. >> i only have the original copy, i can leave you with that. thank you for hearing me. president olague: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, i am here to repreent the -- represent the project sponsor. i want to thank commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya. president olague: if this is general public comment -- >> i can respond to --

president olague: this is the only time? go ahead. >> we want to thank them for their support. we were really impressed with the building design. there is one note i would like to make about the active use. it has been replaced by bicycle parking. we will continue to work with staff on the mural. we held an informational neighborhood meeting. some of the neighbors attended a meeting. there was questions about construction. we will comply with all standards. we also propose having a meeting prior to the commencement to

meet with the neighbors to redress some of their concerns. president olague: is there additional public comment hot items where public comment has been closed? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: the commission was supportive of the building except for those concerns. it is overpoweringly the building on seventeenth and california. commissioner sugaya and i volunteered. in giving some alternative directions to how mone might -- president olague: we have to call the item.

we call the project on to the calendar and also commissioner fong would disclose he's heard the tapes. >> now we are finished with item f, we are now moving to item g. the item at hand. 214 through 216 17th street. this is a request for a rear yard. commissioners, you should know that on january 27, following public testimony, we continue this matter. commissioner fong was absent. commissioner antonini was recused.

they will consider the variances. >> i was able to review the meeting. >> the case before you is a conditional use authorization on a lot greater than that in a zoning district. it is located on the corner of california street. the property currently contains two buildings with a commercial space and two residential units. the proposal will result in a

two-story mixed use building. and a four-story unit. they are seeking a rear-yard variance. the commission voted to continue to find the proposed designs. it was brought towards the seventeenth street facade. it will allow bigger when does an create proportion in relation to the building below. the architect revised the three- unit residential building so that the materials are reduced. have been changed to punched openings.

and the active use on frontage was replaced on a space for art. it was also increased in size and bicycle parking was added. the revised proposal is acceptable and recommend that they approve the project with the additional conditions be rendered in a more durable medium such as mosaic tile or stained-glass. and prior to issuance to insure that it complies with the requirement. since the last hearing, they received one letter which the gentleman spoke to earlier. that concludes my presentation. thank you. commissioner moore: i was just recapping the fact commissioner sugaya volunteered to be together with the architect.

everybody feels good about the exchange. i am comfortable to see the seventeenth street residential building be more in line. i am comfortable with the way it addresses the transition of the historical important facades to the new addition on top. i think the subtle interplay between old and new, of buildings are respectful and more background and allowed, attracting attention on their own. what i have expected has been met, and there is flexibility to respond as smoothly as they did. i like to talk about the department's recommendation and whether it needs to be limited

to mosaic. i am prepared to approve the building and moved to approved. commissioner miguel: i am much more pleased with the current iteration and i thank commissioners moore and sugaya for working on that. just one comment to set the public record straight, the resident is seventeenth ave. to the gentleman that spoke earlier, the items that he mentioned regarding hours of operation and deconstruction construction, malaise, they are

handled and it is my experience as an observer over many years, between the requirements, those items are extremely well handled in san francisco. you cannot expect to live in the middle of a bill the city and not have construction happen in your close proximity at some time. that is just the way a city develops. nothing is ever in place for the next 200 years, it does not happen that way. that aside, i think it is a nice project. as for one of the iterations i saw, specifically, the ballet school. that would be no difference that

if they put something in their window. it should, at some future date, turn into a different type of business. even minerals can be replaced if necessary. and when we originally heard the item as to the public's love of that ballet school, i understand it is somewhat iconic in the neighborhood. president olague: i want to thank them for working well with commissioners sugaya and moore. architects have a lot of the ownership of a project. i am really grateful that you can work so cooperatively with our commissioners. it is a project that everyone is pretty much happy with.

thank you for working with us on that. commissioner moore mad the motion. >> on the motion to approve. [roll call vote] >> i am acting as. i am going to take this matter under advisement. i would say that i am inclined to grant these variances, and as with any variants, it is not final until a letter has been issued with a 10 day appeal window. if anyone of like a copy of that letter, please g